( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of an order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Bareilly rejecting the petitioners revision against an order of the Settlement Officer Bareilly. The case of the petitioner is that she and certain other persons were co-tenure holders with equal shares in a joint holding in village Churai Dalpatpur in bareilly. The petitioner had her holding partitioned under Section 10-A of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. She states that after the partition her plots were equal in quality to those of the other members of her family who are respondents 4 to 6 in this petition. The plots were also situate in the same area. In the consolidation proceedings a statement of proposals was drawn up. Under it the respondent Baldeo Prasad was given all the plots of his choice while the petitioners claim of plots of her choice was ignored. She was allotted plots of inferior quality and given two chaks in block A which were away from the village and situate in opposite directions. Aggrieved by the proposals she filed an objection before the Consolidation Offiner which was rejected. Her appeal before the Settlement Officer was also dismissed. Finally she filed a revision before the deputy Director of Consolidation who quashed the orders of the lower Tribunals with the observation that the petitioner had been allotted two chaks at a distance of two miles from each other. He pointed out that the plots would be unmanageable by her. In pursuance of the order of remand a fresh proposal was made. But, according to the petitioner, no material alteration was made in the original statement of proposals. She remained dissatisfied with the chaks allotted to her. She contrasts her case with that of respondents Baldeo Prasad who was allotted all the plots according to his choice, the five chaks given to him being at very short distance from one another. The petitioner contends that the members of the same family ought to have been allotted neighbouring chaks but this principle was not followed. She filed a revision before the Deputy Director which was rejected. Aggrieved by the decisions of the consolidation authorities she has come to this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that Section 15 of the U. P. Consolidation of holdings Act 1953 is unconstitutional as it vests arbitrary power in the Assistant Consolidation officer, I am unable to agree with this contention. Section 15, lays down principles for the guidance of the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the preparation of the statement of principles which precede consolidation. These principles regulate the powers of the Assistant Consolidation officer. It is true that each one of the sections contains the qualifying words "as far as possible. " this phrase really means that the principles are to be observed unless it is not possible to follow them in the particular circumstances of a case. This qualification was absolutely necessary in view of the fact that the process of compulsory consolidation is a very difficult and complicated one in the peculiar conditions prevailing in this State. Fragmentation of holdings has, through a process of centuries, reached such a stage that there is no straight road back towards consolidation. What can be done in one village may not be possible in another. Therefore, in view of the fact that consolidation is a pressing necessity, it was necessary to add these qualifying words. But that does not render the principles enunciated in Section 15 ineffective or illusory. It is also noteworthy that any person aggrieved by the statement of proposals has the right to file objections under Section 17. The Assistant Consolidation Officer has to dispose of these objections after hearing the parties. There is a further right of appeal to the Consolidation Officer and a final opportunity of getting redress fr